Hi,
I have a few problems with this text, not least because of the
contradictions that exist between a call for a new social compact that
would continue the existence of both capital and the state, and open
borders. A call for a new Europe, built on the model of the nation-state
under capitalism, is both in contradiction to any call for 'no borders'
(or even open borders) and in direct conflict with the aims and momentum
of many of the social movements that have come to the fore within the
countries of the global North within the last ten years: in fact, I'd go
so far as to say it is a conservative cashing in on their potentional,
and an attempt to temper their revolutionary edge. Anyway?
?The spectres of pauperization and exclusion are haunting the people of
Europe. Over the last twenty years, precarity and inequality have broken
the Christian/Social Democratic compromise of the postwar period on
which modern Europe was founded - namely, rising incomes for employees
and rising power for their unions, in exchange for acceptance of the
capitalist system - and have left in its wake the rise of immense
corporate and private wealth, next to escalating exclusion and social
angst. Acting for radical Europe means first of all mobilizing
decisively against social inequality, labor precarization, and the
arrogance of the elites and their privileges, as millions have recently
done in France and Denmark.
In Europe today, the central struggle against neoliberalism is the fight
against precarity.?
There has most definitely been a reorganisation of work/non-work both
globally and within Europe recently (though I feel a more interesting
and accurate account is to be found in Silvers 'Forces of Labour' than
within the paradigm of 'precarity' as it exists within say the
chainworkers model). This 'new order' won't be overly disrupted or
challenged by such a project as a new 'radically democratic' Europe
however. The new Europe depends on cheap labour, and its precarious or
casual nature. And you are right to point to the current European border
regime as maintaining it. However, a new Europe depends on a new
re-drawing of its borders and boundaries -- not their erasure. To
continue Europe is to continue its limits -- there can be no such space
without borders or limits. You are not calling for an end to Europe, but
to its reorganisation under a new social compact -- new welfare systems,
new structures. Both logically and with regards to sheer economics, this
requires borders and controls. Who can enter, when, how, to access what?
the new welfare and social compacts must be funded by the global
inequities you would wish to challenge.
Borders are essential for the functioning of Europe, new or old. There
can be no 'democratic space' without then, nor can a new welfare state
be funded without them. Hence, there is a contradiction in the basic
aims of the manifesto:
OUR BASIC AIMS
To open the borders of Europe to all cultures and peoples.
To promote stronger European political integration and horizontal
federalism and regionalism around these values.
There cannot be open borders AND a stronger European political
integration and federalism. What there will be under this is a
Swiss-style corporatist 'buy-in' welfare system for the privileged few,
and a 'human' border control system operating in conjunction with,
perhaps, 'ethically aware' police forces. You are not calling for the
end of the camps, but for their reorganisation under a new social compact.
The cosmopolitanism that you speak of is, as in previous forms of
cosmopolitanism, based on a racist division of both labour and forms of
life
?A new European cosmopolitanism of radical-democratic (rad-dem)
orientation must take its place, with horizontal federalism, social
action, green politics, and gay rights at its core. Otherwise, the
nation-state will rear its ugly head: strong-armed nationalists and
right-wing populists already are a serious threat in many countries of
Europe.?
This new cosmopolitanism cannot be but a continuation of the
nation-state if it is European: a 'democratic Europe' is a Europe
governed by institutional bodies that can only be a continuation of
those bodies of governance that currently exist. This is obvious from
some of the 'aims':
To give the European Commission a new role: that of European Government,
expression of the European Parliament, accountable to and petitionable
by the European Public.
To promote pan-European referenda on constitutional issues, EU
directives and legislation.
To reform the European Court, so that it can be directly addressed in
lieu of national justice in case of the violation of European
fundamental rights.
To levy a European corporate tax and a European carbon tax.
To return to keynesian, expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, thus
abrogating the Stability Pact and its provisions.
These aims cannot be but a continuation of the nation-state in an
expanded 'European' form. And, as such, constitute a continuation of the
nation-state, abet in a 'block' formation (see Brian Holmes's
Continental drift piece -- apols Brian if I have gotten the name of the
piece wrong -- I do not have it to hand). Racism is an implicit part of
this continuation (Foucault's Society must be defended' is excellent on
this point).
Any reordering of the current world-system, presumably with China-India
at its productive centre and Europe as its financial heart, will not be
overly threatened by such a democratic reordering -- nor will the
controls of the flows of migration, as the borders of Europe will remain
intact. The 'income security' that you write of based on a new 'European
welfare system' is incompatible with an open border. And hence there are
limits on the reduction of the 'persecution of immigrants and refugees'
that you propose. Under your proposal there would be no end to the
persecution, just a more humanitarian regime of control, ultimately
making a mockery of the transnational solidarity that you talk of.
Moreover, the actual ability of Europe to re-structure or implement a
new welfarism is highly questionable, considering it is precisely
because of the profitability crisis of capitalism that occurred in the
70's due to numerous factors that included the cost of welfare for all
that claimed it within the countries of the North (or desired its
expansion to a similar level that you speak of) that welfarism is being
dismantled, In addition, it is also unlikely because both state and
capital seem to be pursuing a strategy of mixing workfare, welfare for
the rich, and endo-colonialism, and would be, I think, unlikely to want
to return to the paradigm of welfare such as existed in the 70's.
?Today, Europe's multiethnic youth is economically discriminated and
increasingly alienated. The European younger generation is caught
between unemployment and precarity, and unable to attain basic social
goods (home, higher education, welfare etc). Gerontocracy of the
elites and consequent privileges for the rentier classes are killing
Europe's future by unfairly burdening European young families and
excluding the creative class from economic and political decisions.?
To start from the category of youth, rather than from the variations
within this category, is to ignore the very real differences young
people face within Europe. The conditions within the suburbs of say
Paris or London more closely resemble the colony than the metropolis
inhabited by the 'aristocratic precarious' or the varying managerial and
creative classes (as problematic as those categorisations are). It is
not just a matter of inclusion -- these are people who, by and large,
cannot be included in the project of Europe. It is not by accident or
for purely ideological reasons that a counter-insurgency program is
being followed in the countries of the global South, or that a process
of endo-colonialism has been begun in the areas of the global North that
house the 'dangerous classes'. Again, this distinction is necessary for
the smooth functioning of the current epoch of capitalism. Not everyone
can be 'cut-in' under the current system -- this is only for a few. To
reorder Europe without completely destroying capitalism would be to
merely change the redistribution of wealth amongst those lucky few
'within Europe' (within the deal of Europe, not its borders?). The
recourse to a discourse of rights in more evidence of the desire for the
reconstitution of the state -- a nation-state where the national is the
European. These rights, as it has been pointed out by many people
previously, are grounded on the lack of rights of others, on global
inequities and ultimately violence. A system that must be destroyed, not
modified.
nico
--
:: http://del.icio.us/diasporas ::
-------------------------------------|
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net